VILLA PARK, Russell Patterson: President Obama recently told Floridians his plan to move the economy forward was being blocked by Republicans. If only the president would be allowed to double the tax that millionaire investors pay (from 15 percent to 30 percent), then the middle class and lower-income earners would not be held back. Does the president believe this hypothesis or is it a campaign strategy pollsters have determined will resonate? No matter, that is the president's position. He owns it.

Obama failed to mention the current 15 percent rate was extended two years in a law passed by a Democratic-controlled legislature and signed into law. Again, he blames Republicans for a law he signed.

A fundamental question for the millionaire investor is, Where do I invest? In the United States or overseas? Those who believe that ensuring a lower return on domestic investments creates jobs for Americans have never risked their own money.

Perhaps voters should view the situation the way they seek lower gas prices. When faced with a significant expenditure, one seeks a good deal. Viewing the millionaire investor through this prism, raising capital-gains tax rates is counterproductive to incentivizing economic growth.

______

LAGUNA HILLS, Stan Haugh: We are supposed to have a Republic form of government. Thanks to the president and his policies the transformation has taken place. We should not be surprised since he said it was his goal to transform America. He has quietly used the power of his office to implement his socialist agenda of wealth redistribution.

A partisan Democratic Congress headed up by then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who ramrodded Obamacare through and passed the law against the wishes of a majority of citizens. Hopefully, the U.S. Supreme Court will strike it down. Otherwise, we will be government-owned, and the government will be too big to reverse anything. Free enterprise will be gone, and the United States will be on the road to socialism.

The president has utter disregard for the Constitution and its checks and balances. He has used his community-organizer experience to implement social-justice programs. He should promote responsibility, but that doesn't buy votes. In the end this will be to the disadvantage of those enamored by entitlements.

Shun your entitlements

COSTA MESA, Mike Berry: What a bunch of self-serving hypocrites. We hear the politicians, both Left and Right, complaining about Social Security and Medicare but not a word about their special perks.

How can Medicare and Social Security be so bad for us when their bloated retirement and insurance puts Medicare and Social Security to shame?

There is a growing feeling among many that this talk of entitlement cutbacks is just a way to finance bigger sweetheart deals for federal, state, county and local employees. Why won't anyone ask people like Congressman Paul Ryan, R-Wis, what his personal, taxpayer-funded “entitlements” are costing us?

Stick to the smart-meter facts

IRVINE, Bruce Tierney: As a Southern California Edison smart-meter customer who appreciates the near real-time information I get, it is sad to see more unsupportable nonsense about smart-grid concerns [“Smart meter backlash,” Local, April 8]. The only source of “backlash” included in the article is one person, Pat Wiseman, who says his mother's bill jumped from $150 to $514 in one year. He “lays the blame squarely on the new meter” as if there are no other possibilities. One data point does not justify a “backlash” article, and no other references in the article are given to support accuracy concerns.

Furthermore, “some people” is the source given for the completely inaccurate claim that the smart-meter radio frequency is a carcinogen. I would hope there is a journalistic rule that says not to publish a claim if the source is “some people.” Even though the article follows with SCE saying it's a weak signal strength, it appears as though there are two equally likely scenarios: carcinogen on one side vs. a weak signal on the other.

Speaking of accuracy, the article refers to “kilowatts per hour,” which is not a valid unit of energy. Kilowatts are already “per time” so it's like saying a car has a speed of “miles per hour per hour.” Kilowatt hour is the correct term and is completely different from kilowatt per hour.

Please start with the facts and then form the foundation for your article.

Justices aren't at issue

LAGUNA HILLS, P. Russell: The story, “Health law may get poor reading ” [News, April 11], is another example of why the Register needs to drop The Associated Press as a reliable news source. Suggesting that the U.S. Supreme Court justices are unable to understand the nuances of Obamacare is condescending and misses the point.

The question about the constitutionality of the mandate revolves around whether the government can force citizens to purchase anything. Whether the law allows the purchase of cheaper stripped-down health insurance plans is irrelevant.

WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Letters to the Editor: E-mail to letters@ocregister.com.
Please provide your name, city and telephone number (telephone numbers will not be published).
Letters of about 200 words or videos of 30-seconds
each will be given preference. Letters will be edited for length, grammar and clarity.

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.